Educational Leadership and Management in Mohila College Chattagram

Masters of Arts in Educational Leadership and Management

Module: EDUC4226 UNMC, Issues in Educational Leadership and Management

Tutor Name:- Dr. Vahid Javadi

Word Count:
CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Educational Leadership & Management: an overview of theories

3. Educational Leadership & Management: the dominant theory in my organisation

4. Educational Leadership & Management: a new era

5. Conclusion and recommendations

6. References
 Educational Leadership and Management in Mohila College Chattagram

Introduction

The effective management and visionary leadership both have the significant influence to

become an educational organization to be marked as “successful”. Bolam (1999, p 194)

defines educational management as ‘an executive function for carrying out agreed policy.’

Bush (2011) emphasized on the purpose or aims of education, which need to be focal

point of the educational management. The purpose of the management to achieve some

specific educational objective coincides with the mission and vision of the leaders of the

educational organization. Leadership has been defined in various ways and Yukl (2002)

confirmed that ‘the definition of leadership is arbitrary and very subjective and some

definitions are more useful than other but there is no correct definition. But, it’s inevitable

that, the influence of the leadership has a strong correction with the effective educational

management. As Bush (1998) links leadership to values or purpose while management

relates to implementation or technical issues. Both leadership and management need to

properly aligned by giving equal prominence to operate the school or colleges effectively

to achieve the predetermined objectives.

As effective leadership is one of the significant attributes for efficient and successful

operation of schools and colleges. Therefore, the achievement of an educational

institution in terms of producing the best outcomes for the students as well as the

stakeholders depends on the quality of the leaders or the effective style of the educational

leadership. It’s needless to say that, a qualified and experienced principals or senior
teacher may not possess the appropriate leadership quality only the sake of experience

or qualifications. Countries like Bangladesh, where a principal or senior teacher treated

an educational leader for his/her position and in many instances without having the formal

leadership development training he/she may not be able to bring the appropriate

outcomes in terms of efficient learning objectives. On the contrary, in developing countries

like Canada, England, France, Scotland and the USA, a formal leadership qualification is

one of the pre-requisite to take up the position as an educational leader. In recent time,

the significance of educational leadership and management has been widely recognized

not only by academics but also the educational leaders as well as all key stakeholders for

ultimate success to achieve the objectives in the educational institution.

There are various models of leadership and any sole model of educational leadership

may not bring the educational effectiveness as a whole. Therefore, in a particular

educational institution a dominant leadership model may be observed and there may be

other model also prevailing simultaneously to support the dominant leadership style to be

fully functional and effectiveness of the college or school to bring the optimal output.

In this coursework, I have focused on the theoretical aspects by comparing and

contrasting of the main leadership models and theories to explore the effectiveness on

the educational management system namely managerial leadership, transformational

leadership, distributed leadership, contingent leadership.I have also taken the initiative to

observe the different leadership style coincide with the relevant theoretical frame work,

which has been practiced in my college and also explain and critically analyze which

theory is dominant in my college . Furthermore, the effect of this theory on the output of
my organisation is also been determined. In addition, an effort has been taken to identify

the best possible theory, which might bring the effective and efficient outcomes in my

college perspective. Alongside, the crucial factors have been identified and assessed

accordingly to implement the suggestive theory. Aftermost, the article has been wrapped

up with analysis of the impact of this paper on my understanding of the educational

leadership & management with appropriate recommendations for change in policy and

practice.

Educational leadership & management: an overview of theories

There are various alternative models of school leadership has been developed by the

academia, which are competing in terms of their specific intrinsic values. In this

coursework, I have taken the initiative to analyse and contrast of these theories drawn on

Leithowood, Jantzi and Steinbeach (1999) and Bush (2011).

Managerial Leadership

Managerial eldership assumes that, the leader will always focus on the functions,

task and behaviour and if the functions are carried successfully, the effectiveness of the

educational organization will be definite. There is a strong co-relation between influences

and formal position of the leader .Leithwood et al (ibid: 15) argued that, ‘there is evidence

of considerable support in the literature and among practicing leaders for managerial

approaches to leadership’. Hoyle and Wallace (2005: 68) depict the relationship

between managerial leadership and leadership for learning as the functions of

management to facilitate teaching as well as learning, the main objective of the

educational enterprise.

Transformational Leadership

This form of leadership stressed that; the commitments of the organizational members as

well as their capacities would be central focus of this leadership model. It is

assumed that, the better productivity would be depend on the higher level of individual

commitment to the organizational goals and their capacities to achieving these goals.

(Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach, 1999: 9).

Leithwood’s (1994: 506) has studied the transformational leadership model in various

perspectives and has concluded that, ‘Transformational leadership practices, considered

as a composite construct, had significant direct and indirect effects on progress with

school-restructuring initiatives and teacher-perceived student outcomes’.

Kirkbride (2006: 30) also confirmed that, there is a strong correlation between the

transformational leadership and leadership success.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership approach focuses on the exchange of valued resource for

providing specific services. In other words “quid pro quo” (something for something) is

the main motto of transactional leadership where interaction between administrators and

teachers is limited to the exchange transaction. Head and principals hold the formal

authority as the leader of the educational organization. Promotion and references treat to

be the key rewards as signification motivator to deliver appropriate service toward

educational institution. However, for the efficient and effective school management, the

head requires the appropriate co-operation from the peers.

Judge and Piccolo (2004, p. 755) indentified three dimension of transactional leadership

such as contingent rewards, management by exceptions (active) and management by

exception (passive).

Distributed leadership

The Distributed leadership model is one of preferred leadership model in 21st century for

its unique attributes. This model primarily focuses on shared and collective leadership

practice that works as a ‘catalyst’ to builds the capacity for change and improvement.

Gronn (2010: 70) states that ‘there has been an accelerating amount of scholarly and

practitioner attention accorded [to] the phenomenon of distributed leadership’.

In the distributed leadership model positional authority or experience is not the only

determinant to be a “leader” rather than it focuses on engaging expertise within the

organization. Harris (2004: 13). However, in the school management perspectives, it does

not always means that the scope of principal’s role may be curtailed on distributed

leadership model as principal act as the formal leader to orchestrate and nature the space

of distributed leadership to occur. Without the active support of the principal, it is almost

impossible to achieve. Hopkins and Jackson (2002). Hartley (2010: 27) argues that ‘its

popularity may be pragmatic: to ease the burden of overworked head teachers’.

Hallinger and Heck (2010) confirmed that, there is a positive correlation between

distributed leadership and change in academic capacity to contribute growth in learning

objectives. Leithwood et al (2006: 13) add that, highest level of student achievements in

a school depends on the high levels of influence from all sources of leadership.
As the model accord with the notion that, values should be shared by all the adults in the

educational institutes including teachers, professional, therefore it assumed one of the

most popular models in educational leadership. However, the problem arises when the

assumption of shared values may not coincide with the reality of conflicting values.

Contingent leadership

The various models of educational leadership only endorse a particulars aspect of

leadership and ‘no solo leadership model is the best type’ and not able to provide a

comprehensive picture of school leadership.

By recognizing all the diverse nature of school context, the contingent leadership model

provides an alternative approach to focus on the unique organizational circumstances or

problems to fit the adaptive leadership style to deliver appropriate leadership responses

to be more effective. (Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach, 1999: 15)

Yukl (2002: 234) adds that as it is almost impossible to rely on a fixed set of responses

to the events as the managerial role is more challenging and complex. Therefore, the

successful leaders are always more attentive to the situation to adopt their appropriate

behavior to match with it to deliver effective and efficient outcome.

It is very important to diagnosis the problems effectively as well as act on the appropriate

response coincide with the emerging situation to foster an effective leadership outcomes

(Morgan 1997).

Analysis
From the above theoretical discussion, we may segregate the leadership model in two

broad categories. Managerial and transactional leadership model in formal category and

transformational, distributed and contingent leadership model in less formal category for

making the analysis simple and constructive.

There is a greater risk of formal leadership model i.e. managerial leadership as the

leadership style always focuses on the task in the sake of greater managerial efficiency

rather than the objective of the purpose of the education i.e. learning

outcomes. Managerial leadership may be cause to bring the managerilisic approach by

setting rigid target or planning in the school organization, which may not

always matches with the traditional professional values and sometimes it may yield value

free management by not giving emphasis on the total learning objectives at all. It is

inevitable that, the importance of managerial leadership is very significant for school

success but it should be complementary to the value based approaches. Though effective

management is very essential for school success but value-free managerialism is

inappropriate and damaging (Bush 2011).

The transformational leadership, the other formal model predominantly based on a

normative approach to school leadership, which presumably focuses on the process by

the leaders to emphasize the school outcomes rather than direction of those outcomes.

Nevertheless, the model has been criticized, as the leader’s value is the most dominant

factor to control over teachers, therefore, it is more likely to be accepted by the leader

rather than the followers. (Chirichello 1999).

Transformational leadership model has been widely preferred by the governments and

encouraged to the practitioner to adopt and implement the policies determined by the

central authority. For instance, in South Africa, an effort has been made to reinforce a

non-racist Post-Apartheid education system by adopting transformation leadership

model. The policy seemed to be very rich but week in practice, as many school principals

have inadequate capacity and the authority to implement the change effectively. (Author

et al 2009).

The transformational model significantly emphasized the importance of value. However,

critics argued that, the values of the government often imposed through the school

principal as he/she may be acting on behalf of the government, therefore educational

values likely to be dominated by the externally imposed values.

If transformational leadership model could place effectively and efficiently, it has a huge

potential to involve all the relevant stakeholders to achieve the educational objectives.

However, when transformation model has been applied to impose the leader’s value or

establishing the government’s recommendation, then the process can be assumed as

“political’ rather than genuinely transformational. (Bush 2011:86)

The formal leadership model has primarily focused on either greater managerial efficiency

or values of the principal, which is literally imposed by the government. The purpose of

the educational efficacy may not get the considerable focus. As the model always is more

rigid and central, therefore the stakeholders may not be spontaneous to implement the

model for bringing the better outcome in the educational organization.

On the other hand, the less formal leadership models i.e. distributed, contingent,

transformational models seem to be more flexible, participative but have also some

limitations.

In schools leading, the head and principal poses much of the formal authority, therefore

Hartley (2010:80)conclude that, within the formal bureaucracy of schools, distributed

leadership (less formal leadership model) may not be aligned properly to deliver the

ultimate outcome of the effective leadership.

Harris (2004: 16) argues that, the limitation of singular leadership approach has been

recognized by the successful heads and adopt appropriate from of leadership distributed

trough collaborative and joint working. However, Gronn’s (2010: 74) conclude based on

the four research projects that, principals poses substantial power therefore exercised

greater influence, which is disproportionate compared to their counterparts/individual

peers. However, Harris (2005: 167) argues that the coexistence of distributed and

hierarchical form of leadership may be compatible but it’s only properly functional if formal

leaders allow appropriate support.

On the other hand, contingency approach which is almost reflexive by nature play an

important role in the period of turbulence when leaders need to more inquisitive about the

situation and react accordingly rather than depending on a single leadership model.

A contingent approach is one of the best approaches in the educational management as

it always advocate the “right” approach and seem to be more” pragmatic” and is not

tending by a clear set of values.

The other less formal leadership model i.e. The transactional leadership approach may

not engage staff eternally and the result has been based on the worthiness of exchange

values so that long term commitment may not be produced literally to shape the vision of

school leaders.

Educational leadership & management: the dominant theory in my organisation

My educational institute “Enaet Bazar Mohila College” is a female college established in

1970 situated at Chittagong in the port city of Bangladesh. As it a private college and

under the ministry of education of Bangladesh, therefore the college administration is

centrally controlled. There is a governing body consisting of the representatives of the

stockholders as well as stakeholders, which is primarily responsible for setting the

direction of the college.

It’s almost evident that, no single theory always be effective for any given situation in

leadership. Most of the educational institution adopts a combination of two or three

leadership models to be more successful to achieve the goal of the organization in

coincide with the values of the leaders. In my college perspective, Managerial and

Transformational leadership models seem to be more dominant and in this course work

an initiative has been taken to analysis further to justify the implications of these

leadership modes in the college effectiveness in the context of a privately owned college

in Bangladesh . Furthermore, the effect of these theories on the output of my organisation

has been critically analysed.

In my college, the principal as the head of the college posses the authority legitimatized

by her formal position as the college is in hierarchical system. She is also accountable to

the governing bodies for the activities to make the organization effective and efficient. In

the existing leadership model, the concept of vision is not considered at all which is central

to most leadership model. As the principal working in centralized systems therefore she

focuses on managing exiting activities as it priorities the efficient implementation of

external imperatives rather than visioning a better future for the school. As the principal’s

role is primarily to focus on the implementation of the policy determined by the central

government and the governing bodies, therefore managerial leadership model has been

put in place with corresponding with the educational system of Bangladesh.

There are some key features, which have been extracted from the existing managerial

model of leadership prevailing in my college. This leadership model tends to treat the

educational institution as a system and have certain elements which are closely linked

with each other. For example, the departments and sub-units are closely related to each

other. The institution has a specific organogram, which clearly shows the authorized

pattern of relationship between the members of institutions. The official structure of the

college is hierarchical; therefore teachers are responsible to the head of the departments

who, in turn, are responsible to the principals for the activities of their departments. The

goal of the institution set with broader visions, which are acceptable and pursed by

members of the organization.

There are some specific weaknesses associated with Managerial Leadership model,

which have negative impact on the effectiveness of the college success. It’s very difficult

to characterize my college as goal-oriented organization as too many general goals

cannot be fully operational competing for resources and because goals are set by

different segments i.e. centrally by the education ministry of Bangladesh, Governing

bodies of the College, leaders of the organization etc, which are not always aligned

properly in terms of learning objectives. Even, if any objectives have been achieved, it
could be not be evaluated properly as policy makers always rely on exam performance

to assess the college but its only one dimension of the educational process. In addition,

the model focus on the college as an entity, therefore the contribution of the individuals

are completely ignored and underestimated. Moreover, in this leadership model top down

approach has been adopted for institutional management as the policy is laid down the

leaders and implemented by the lower down of the hierarchy. Furthermore, its assume

that, the environment of the college is static but in reality it’s very complex and more

dynamic.

There are obviously certain advantages of managerial leadership, notably for

bureaucratic systems, but due to the professional role of the teachers it’s very difficult to

apply it to the schools and colleges. If the teachers are not involved with “own” innovations

but only required to implement policy, which are externally imposed, they will do it without

enthusiasm, leading to possible failure (Bush 2003: 46).

‘Transformational leadership”, which seem to be also dominant in my college, where the

central focus of the leadership is the commitments and capacities of the college members.

Although, some features of this leadership are absent due to the coexistence of the formal

leadership model which may conflicting with each other. (Leithwood et al., 1999:9)

confirmed that, higher level of commitment to organizational goals and greater

accomplishment those goals are assumed to result in extra effort and greater productivity.

Leithwood (1994) conceptualizes transformational leadership along eight dimensions,

which has been recognized in education leadership of my college. Though, the important

dimension of transformational leadership i.e. Building school vision may not be integrated

properly with the formal leadership model. But, all the other dimension of transformational

leadership model is lively in my college context such as

 establishing school goals

 Providing intellectual stimulations

 Offering individualized support

 modelling best practices and important organisational values;

 demonstrating high performance expectations;

 creating a productive school culture; and

 developing structures to foster participation in school decisions.

Usually, the specific goals of my college have been put in place. The governing body,

principal and the head of the departments work together to set the goals with “SMART”

proposition literally with coincide with the policy guidelines of the Education Ministry of

Bangladesh. However, in many cases, the goal setting is not straightforward as the

educational system of Bangladesh is fully controlled by the Education Ministry of

Bangladesh. Therefore, most of the goals are general and fixed for nationwide, therefore

each and every goal may not be practically implementable or even justified for my college.

In my college a special program has been taken throughout the year to provide intellectual

stimulations for the stakeholder by organizing seminar, symposium, specialized teachers

training, vocational training etc which obviously enrich the knowledge of the participants

in the specific areas. In addition, individual support has been provided to the students as

well as the teachers for their specific needs i.e. learning, trainings, financial etc.

The leaders of my college are very enthusiastic to adopt the best practices in the college

administration as well as educational management to make the college successful.

However, it’s not very easy without the support of the policy maker (central), as

“enthusiasm” is not the only criteria to implement those. However, the college has marked

a significant progress in adopting collegial leadership model simultaneously with the

formal leadership model, which has given a “positive” approach to build the commitment

of the stakeholders more strong and solid to bring best positive outcomes for college

success. The transformational model always provide a normative approach to school

leadership therefore the leaders always focus on how to influence the school outcomes

rather than on the nature of those outcomes(Chirichello1999).

In addition, the expectation regarding the college performance has set high with aligning

with the ‘local benchmark’. The performance is not only based on exam result but also

other important success criteria’s such as quality of teaching, curriculum, infrastructural

facilities etc. A participative approach has been put in places which definitely foster a

productive culture, which is very crucial for college success.

 Educational leadership & management: a new era

The leadership models obviously need to fit in with the organizational culture,

composition, environment and the vision of the organization to be most effective and

productive.
There are variously leadership styles and any “solo” model may not be effective in the

more complex and demanding situation. The leader may embrace and use contingent

leadership model to run the operation of the educational institution as an instant solution.

But, it is very complex and difficult to adopt the appropriate leadership style in the

challenging college environment.

Personal and various researches on educational management suggest that, there is no

“one style” or “one person “could be able to build a highly effective educational institution.

Duignan (2006) suggests that only the college principal is not capable to handle all areas

as such distributed leadership considered as shared and most important leadership

model. (p.150).Bennett, Crawford and Cartwright (2003) also added that, it is not possible

to undertakings of the leadership responsibilities by one individual within a school and

may not even be desirable.(p.181).Ritchie and Deakin Crick (2007) also confirmed that

the necessity of introducing more inclusive approach, which involves all the stakeholders

including staffs to move away from a single leader as leadership capacity for educational

institutions effectiveness.

Harris (2012) echoes the need to embrace the distributed leadership as the educational

institutes become more complex diffuse and networked, various forms of direction and

influence will be required to respond to quickly shifting and changing environments” (p.

9).

Distributed leadership primarily focuses on two aspects “activities” and “interactions” and

how they distributed across multiple people and situations (Camburn, 2003;

Copland,2003; Spillane et al. 2004). Leaders are responsible to carry out different

functions both formal and informal, which are spread across the organization. In this
context, Distributed leadership theory extends the responsibilities as well as “power”

beyond the principal as the principal would be able to share the day to day activities of

the school with assistant principals, teachers and other staff members (Spillane, 2006).

As the educational leadership is more complex than ever, therefore the leadership

function of the college principle has been changed. The specific reason may not be

explicitly found but various research confirmed that, the schools often get “distributed” by

the principal (Leithwood, 2006). The distribution may occur in various ways through i.e.

setting mission, effective management, professional development and realigning the

instructional program (Leithwood, 2006). The theory endorses the decentralization of one

leader (Harris, 2003) and clearly shows how the leadership is distributed.

There are only one principal in every college, therefore the impact of educational

leadership led by one personal may not bring the “optimal outcome” in the ultimate

objective of college effectiveness. As the principal carry out numerous responsibilities,

therefore, for the success of the educational institution, they should be able to influence

other leaders (formal as well informal) within the organization (Lambert, 2002; Shivers-

Blackwell, 2006; Spillane 2005, 2006, and 2010).

My organization a privately owned college has been practicing a managerial leadership

model for day-to-day operation and which may be need to realign with the distributive

leadership model for generating better outcome in term of educational effectiveness by

meeting the demands of the existing educational climate as the model considered as

more “reflexive”.

Distributed Leadership Practice

The diagram below (Figure 1: Distributed Leadership practice) depicts the three basic

factors, which are critical for shaping leadership practices within the distributed leadership

framework in my college perspective. As the leaders are more often influenced by

‘internal’ as well as ‘external’ factors therefore most of the cases principal not only play

the central leadership role. In addition, there are numerous individuals who also take the

leadership roles within the educational institution. The term “situation” refers to the day to

day experiences and tasks completed by using and incorporating various artifacts. The

term artifact refers to the cultural principles, which are obviously intangible. Establishing

the school vision, goals and expectation can be a better set of example of such artifacts

(Spillane, 2007). In addition, the tangible artifacts also play a vital role such as various

instructional tools could be utilized accordingly for better effectiveness of distributed

leadership i.e. student assessment data, curriculum guides, observation feedback forms,

grade level meeting agendas etc.

Distributed leadership mainly focuses on how the leaders and followers put their effort to

achieve a goal. If distributed leadership become part of the school’s operation practice,

the principal may better indentified, which tasks need to distributed, who should be

involved in the distribution and which artifacts should be adopted in school instructional

program for better outcomes.

Leaders

Leadership
Practice
Situation Followe
s r
External
Factors
 Figure 1: Distributed Leadership Practice

To move towards distributed leadership, there are various factors which may facilitate to

adopt the leadership model in the existing system. Effective communication is one of the

main factors which may be divided into three categories i.e. communication about a clear

vision, communication about increased student achievements and communication about

role.

The prime task of the leadership team is to establishing a wide vision for the college as

they take the responsibility to make the vision clearly articulated and achieved. The

accountability has pushed forward to deliver better outcome, i.e. the increased student

achievement, which is definitely embedded with the college vision. The vision facilitates

to create a solid instructional focus, which is attainable and also manageable.

The core purpose of the vision would be the increased student performance. Furthermore,

the role of each members of staffs are clearly defined and also provided adequate tools

and feedback so that, they would be able to take appropriate decision in corresponding

to emerging “situation”.

The principal of the college shares authority and power in a distributed leadership model;

therefore teachers not only take the leading roles but also take the corresponding

responsibility (Spillane, 2005). Thus, the model assists to participate all the staff’s in key

decision-making and implementation processes and also make them accountable for their
actions. This practice always foster a collaborative working environment lead to collective

effort towards goals through conducting professional development and also sharing

professional knowledge.

Relationships are very important part for implementation of distributed leadership as the

success of the model mostly depend on how the college principal creating, building and

fostering relationship among the all staff members towards achieving the goals. If the

bonding is strong among the staff members, they would be more receptive of the values

of the leaders and great outcomes may be achieved in terms of college success.

The existing authority structure or “managerial leadership model’ in the college is one the

potential barrier to implementation of distributed leadership. ‘There are inherent threats

to status and the status quo in all that distributed leadership implies’ (Harris 2004: 20).

As the managerial model is inherited by the existing educational system of Bangladesh,

therefore, the adoption process of “distributed model” is not very easy to implement as

the educational system is totally controlled by the central authority. Moreover, in

distribution model, the main focus is to distribute the power and authority to the other

member of staff to bring the optimal output in the college education, therefore the principal

of the college may feel insecure to loss the total control over the college as a heroic

leader.

In case of goal setting, there are various objectives, which have been set predominantly

by the educational ministry which are very generalized and vague and prescribed to

implement in all the colleges nationwide. While implementing distributed leadership in my

college, the articulation of specific goals for the college effectiveness seem to be a
“dilemma” as the goals should be embedded with the vision of the leaders and many

cases, the goals are conflicting with those general goals, which has already been set up

by the government.

It’s apparent that, centralization is one of the core barriers for implementation of

distributive leadership model in my college. As the policy of college education has been

prescribed through national level, therefore there is little scope for providing intellectual

stimulation and individual support for fostering collaboration among the staff members of

the college as the approach is totally “top down”. Therefore, congenial cultural and social

context may not be developed accordingly to support the distributive leadership model in

the college context. In addition, lack of skilled or trained staff and inability to provide

adequate reward to the delegated staff members are also the hurdle for establishing

distributed leadership.

Despite of some challenges for implementing the distributing leadership model, it’s not

only assists to reduce the burden of the school leaders but also develop leadership

capacity throughout the college and succession planning and management.

 Conclusion and recommendations

Effective leadership is very essential to develop the efficiency of the college as the

“leaders” play the most signification role in improving the college outcomes by motivating

the staff members to build up necessary capabilities to response the ‘situation’

proficiently. Therefore, raising the standards of leadership and management has definitely

had a positive relationship with college improvements. In this coursework I have

examined different leadership models with their nature and effectiveness in promoting

college improvements. Accordingly, a set of leadership models has been discussed and

compared along with dominant leadership theories, which has been adopted in my

college. Furthermore, I have analysed the effect of this theories on the output of my
organisation .In addition, I have also recommended a leadership model i.e. Distributed

leadership to adopt, which seem to be more effective in my college context and the

relevant factors has also been critically analysed for its successful implementation.

As the leadership is the priority in education systems across the nation, therefore policy

makers need to emphasis on the leadership development and there be some policy

levers may pull together to improve the college leadership, which has been discussed

below:

The educational policy should be formulated to provide more autonomy with appropriate

support as the leaders have the capacity to bring optimal output in terms of college

success by improving teaching and learning. In that case, distributed leadership model

may be set as an ‘inspirational model’ for setting up new types of accountability and

development for the college leaders. The policy should be redefining the leadership

responsibilities for improved student learning by encouraging college leaders to support,

evaluate and develop teacher’s quality. Policy framework must support the college

leaders to provide adequate training for professional development, so that they would be

able to promote teamwork among teachers and also be more efficient to monitor and

evaluate the learning effectiveness in relevance to the local college context. In addition

to support goal- setting assessment, the college leaders would be able to develop college

plan in line with the national curriculum standard with focusing on the local college needs.

In addition, it’s very important to promote “data-wise” leadership through support and

training opportunities, so that the leaders may be capable to use the data to redesign the
appropriate strategies for the better learning outcomes. A systematic approach to the

leadership policy and practice may also help the college leaders to cooperative with the

local community and take the distributed leadership responsibilities and also engage in

activities beyond the college.

The development of college leadership framework is also very important for improved

policy and practice, where ‘compliance’ is not only the main focal point but also building

commitment has significant “weight” while the representatives of college leadership

involved in the formulation and development of the framework. This framework should be

clearly articulated the major domains of responsibilities of college leaders based on the

effective leadership practice and specific needs of the national education systems. This

framework must be coherent to different domains of school leadership policy, e.g. training,

recruitment, performance appraisal of college leaders.

The encouragement and support of distribution of leadership also be very helpful for

college effectiveness. Therefore, institutional team structures may be formed not only by

developing leadership teams but also formally distribute their task accordingly.

Strengthen the succession planning also assist the college leaders to be more relaxed to

handle the emerging crisis situation. Moreover, reinforce the concept of distributed

leadership terms in the national framework and develop “reward mechanisms” to motivate

the participants has given immense influence to implement the distributed leadership

model put in practice in the educational institutions.

The other important aspects i.e. collaboration with the governing body should be prime

focus of the college leadership as it’s ensure the accomplishment of the objectives which

is embedded with the vision of the leaders. Therefore, it must ensure the active
participation of the governing body in the college leadership, so that a “synergy” may

emerge to contribute significant progress in the college effectiveness.

Furthermore, special training can be provided to the college leaders by the Miniseries of

Education or local government or any specialized training institution to provide

awareness, improve knowledge and provision of leadership development opportunities.

In addition, professionalize recruitment policy must be put in place for ensuring the

effective recruitment planning and implementation. The recruitment panel must be familiar

with the appropriate recruitment tools to asses a wider range of knowledge, skills and

competencies. If required, adequate training and necessary guidelines should be

provided to the concerned persons.

Furthermore, the educational policy must ensure that, the salary of the college leader’s

should be attractive and performance based reward system may be introduce to motivate

the college leaders to attain the college objectives in coincide with the vision.

References

Bamburg, J., & Andrews, R., (1990): ‘School goals, principal and achievement. School Effectiveness and

School Improvement’.2(3), 175-191

Bolam, R. (1999) ‘Educational administration, leadership and management:towards a research agenda’,

in T. Bush, L. Bell, R. Bolam, R. Glatter and P.Ribbins (eds), Educational Management: Redefining

Theory, Policy and Practice.London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

Brundrett, Mark, ed. (2012) Principles of school leadership. Sage

Bush, T. (1986): ‘Theories of Educational Management.’ London: Harper and Row

Bush, T. (1995): ‘Theories of Educational Management.’ 2nd edn. London: Paul.

Bush, T. (1999): Crisis or crossroads? The Discipline of Educational Management in the Late 1990s.

‘Educational Management and Administration.’ 27: 239-252.

Bush, T. (2003): ‘Theories of Educational Management’, 3rd edn. London: Sage.

Bush, T (2003): ‘Editorial: Concept and Evidence in Educational Leadership and Management’

Bush, T. (2007): ‘Educational leadership and management: theory, policy, and practice.’ EASA Vol.

27(3)391-406.

Bush, T. (2011): ‘Theories of Educational Leadership and Management.’ Fourth Edition, London: Sage.

Bush, T. (2016): Editorial: ‘Governing schools and colleges: The powers and responsibilities of

stakeholders’.

Bush, T. (2018): ‘Preparation and induction for school principals: global perspectives. Management in

Education, 32(2). Pp. 66-71. ISSN 1741-9883.

Bush T. and Glover, D. (Spring 2003): ‘School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence.

Bush T. and Glover, D.: ‘School Leadership Model: What do we know?’

Coleman & Earley (2005): ‘Leadership and management in education.’ New York. Oxford University Press.

Cuban, L. (1988): ‘The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools’. Albany , NY: State

University of New York Press.

Crawford, M. (2009). Getting to the heart of leadership: Emotion and educational leadership: Sage.

Dressler, B. (2001) ‘Charter school leadership’, Education and Urban Society, 33(2): 170–85.

Dwyer, D., (1986): ‘Understanding the principal’s contribution to instruction. Peabody Journal of Education’.

63(1), 3-18

Green, H. (2001) Ten Questions for School Leaders. Nottingham: National Collegefor School Leadership.
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J., (1985): ‘Assessing the instructional leadership behavior of principals’.

Elementary School Journal. 86(2), 217-248

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K., (1996): ‘School context, principal leadership and student

achievement’. Elementary School Journal. 96(5), 498-518

Hallinger, P. (2005): ‘Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy the Refuses to

Fade Away’. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 4: 1-20

Hallinger, P. (2008): A review of PIMRS studies of principal instructional leadership: Assessment of

progress over 25 years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association

(AERA). New York.

Harber, C. and Davies, L. (1997) School Management and Effectiveness in Developing Countries.

London: Cassell.

Harlow, Pearson Education (2004) Handbook of educational leadership and management. Sage.

Harris, A. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: leading or misleading? Management in Education,

16(5), 10-13.

Harris, A. (2010). Distributed leadership: evidence and implications. The Principles of Educational

Leadership & Management, 55-69.

Heck, R., Larson, T., & Marcoulides, G., (1990): ‘Principal instructional leadership and school achievement.

Validation of a casual model’. Educational Administration Quarterly. 26, 94-125

Kimmelman, P.L. (2010). ‘The school leadership triangle: from compliance to innovation.’ California:

Corwin.
Lambert, L. (1995) ‘New directions in the preparation of educational leaders’,Thrust for Educational

Leadership, 24(5): 6–10.

Leithwood, K. & Montgomery, D., (1982): ‘The role of the elementary principal in program improvement.

Review of Educational Research’. 52(3), 309-339

Leithwood, K. (1994): ‘Leadership for school restructuring, Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4),

498-518.

Leithwood et al. (1999): ‘Changing Leadership for Changing Times.’ Buckingham. Open University Press.

Lynch, Matthew (2012) A guide to effective school leadership theories. Routledge.

Philip Hallinger and Ronald H. Heck (2008): ‘Distributed leadership in schools: Does System Policy Make

a Difference?’

Philip Hallinger and Ronald H. Heck (1996): ‘Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a

review of empirical research 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly. 32[1]. 5-44

Rahman, M., Hamzah, M. I. M. & Meerah, T. S. M. & M. (2010): ‘Historical development of secondary

education in Bangladesh. Colonial period of 21st century International Education Studies.’ 3(1). 114-125.

Sefi Peleg (2012): ‘Leadership in education.’ Universities of Barber-Bolyai. Clug Napoka. Romania. 1.1,

5-8.

Sergiovanne (1984: 13): ‘Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational leadership, 41: 4-13.

Southworth, G. (1993): ‘School leadership and school development: reflections from research’, School

Organisation, 12(2): 73-87.

Southworth, G., (2002: 79): ‘Instructional leadership in schools: reflections and empirical evidence’. School

Leadership and Management. 22(1), 1173-92

Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations.